Re: Voice codecs

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

On 2006/07/31 23:07, Daryl Malas <daryl@...> wrote:
> I agree with Geoff's statement below.
> 
> On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 14:52 -0400, Geoff Devine wrote:
> > That sounds good to me.  
> > 
> > I'd point out that different federations are likely to have different
> > ideas about what makes up the "minimal codec".  In broadband-oriented
> > federations, that would likely be G.711.  In cellular-centric
> > federations that are converging to IP transport, it's more likely to be
> > their native client compression codec.  If eBay created one based on
> > Skype, it could very well be iLBC.
> > 
> > I think we all agree that transcoding is something we want to avoid but
> > we need to come up with an architecture that takes it into account. 
> > 
> > Geoff
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@...] 
> > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 2:39 PM
> > To: Geoff Devine; 'Livingood, Jason'; speermint@...
> > Cc: 'Greg Herlein'; 'Ed Okerson'; 'Lipford,Mark A [CTO]'; 'Klaus
> > Darilion'; 'Henry Sinnreich'
> > Subject: RE: [Speermint] Voice codecs
> > 
> > Okay, makes sense.  So, maybe it's more like, the federation agrees on